Poll: How should the US Constitution be ammended

[gdnp]

Bwah ha ha, SUPREME POWAR!!!!!11


Ahem- I mean, what is the exact critique? Do you fear for the citizens of Finland, Ireland, Japan, the Netherlands, NZ, Sweden, and the UK?

They must suffer terribly under a government of SUPREME POWAR!!!111

Notice how you completely avoided substantiating your original accusation. If you consider a Unitary government to mean a Soviet socialist state, are NZ, Japan, etc. Soviet states?

I'm not sure switching to a unitary government would be an improvement. Certainly, it is not feasible. But in the small amount of research I have done, It would seem that a unitary government need not be any less democratic than a federal system. It would would certainly be more difficult to devise an authoritarian, centrally planned federal system. As such, I can see how those who fear such a system would prefer a federal government.

This does not necessarily mean more freedom, however. In New Jersey I cannot pump my own gas, because the legislature thinks it is too dangerous. In Bergen County, I cannot shop on Sunday, because of centuries-old blue laws that have been repealed everywhere else in the state. And I am sure the civil rights activists in Alabama preferred federal policies over state-sponsored segregation.

A line item veto gives the executive too much power.

The better way to get the same result is a "one object rule" where a bill can only address one issue and that issue must be clearly stated in the title.

No more riders where a crap provision setting aside ten billion dollars to study astrology is stapled to the "We Don't Hate Grandma" act so if a congressman votes against it based on the astrology part he can look forward to hearing how he hates his Grandma during the next election. Ugh.

The problem with this is that the "one object" may be "the budget of the defense department". Still plenty of room to tack on extra tanks produced in your district that the army doesn't need.

A line-item veto would eliminate the incentive to tack on such riders. Many state governors have one, IIRC. Since line items can't be added, the effect would be to eliminate spending provisions that can't stand on their own.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Your justification is a little surprising to me; ordinarily, I would expect a defense along the lines of the rights enumerated in the first ten amendments are fundamental to a functioning free society or similar. Should I take your response to mean that having these constitutional rights is no longer necessary, given governments are less oppressive today?

No, that would be insulting, dishonest, and a cheap attempt to put words into my mouth. Your use of the term "justification" is also dishonest. I grew up with 26 amendments as a given, minus two for the prohibition, and took for granted that they were good enough, given that they passed the test of getting into the Document. As I said, we are dealing in a counterfactual bit of jerking off here, and I for one am not interested in the clean up afterwards. The primacy of the three I noted are directly related to addressing the problem of government being oppressive, and the need to limit government. That has not changed much at all. It's a matter of degree, not kind.

Are you referring to the Voting Right Act of 1970 in regards to constitutionality (rather than the 26th)?

In part.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

\ If I did, Darth would probably refer us to this link.

Wrong again. I don't play the youtube jerkoff game either.

What does that make you, a voyeur?

No, the older brother who stumbles across his brother mangling his meat, and pointing out that there are better methods of wrist muscle strengthening.

Having gone back over this thread, and my replies, I certainly cast the first stone, so I'll offer to you a little less of my Right Prick(TM) act, and a bit more couth, in future replies.

DR

 

[aerosolben]

No, that would be insulting, dishonest, and a cheap attempt to put words into my mouth.

I attempted to phrase that carefully, so as to suggest it was merely what I inferred your position to be, and give you an opportunity to clarify.

Your use of the term "justification" is also dishonest.

Nonsense. You stated which amendments you felt particularly strongly about, then gave a reason for your support - that is the very definition of a justification.

You seem determined to believe I am trying to be dishonest or provocative in some fashion - I assure you, this is not the case. There is no need to be belligerent, I am trying to honestly respond to your arguments.

As I said, we are dealing in a counterfactual bit of jerking off here, and I for one am not interested in the clean up afterwards.

I shall jump straight to the point, then. You came into this thread apparently hellbent against speculative amendments; I was attempting to demonstrate that while you did not see any particular amendments you thought were worthwhile being discussed, you should not be a priori against the possibility of their existence, and thus, your objections in the thread should be targeted towards particular theoretical amendments (or classes of amendment) rather than objecting to the whole thing in principle.

I am forced to use historical examples to demonstrate my second premise because you have not expressed support any other ones.

In part.

I misspoke earlier; the Voting Rights Act does not violate the 14th, only Articles 1 & 2 which reserve that power to the states. The only mention of the 14th in the decision is actually in the dissents, which argued that the ability of Congress to set the voting age was already granted by the Equal Protection clause (it also comes in discussion of literacy tests, but this is outside the scope of our discussion).

Where, exactly, is this violation? If anything, the 26th expands the powers granted to Congress by the 14th.

 

[luchog]

My vote: "Leave it the (old-rule-8) alone!"

I'd agree with this completely, with a few minor qualifications.
1) Clarify and strengthen the 2nd Amendment as an individual right.
2) Clarify and strengthen individual privacy rights.
3) Strengthen the 9th and 10th Amendments, and further limit the powers of the Federal and state governments; particularly with regard to prohibition of drugs, "obscene" materials, and similar consensual activities.

I'd like to see a modification of the Electoral College, preventing the "winner take all" systems most states have, and perhaps moving toward a more proportional representation system, but I'm not sure how well that would work in real life.

 

[Piggy]

A line item veto gives the executive too much power.

The better way to get the same result is a "one object rule" where a bill can only address one issue and that issue must be clearly stated in the title.

No more riders where a crap provision setting aside ten billion dollars to study astrology is stapled to the "We Don't Hate Grandma" act so if a congressman votes against it based on the astrology part he can look forward to hearing how he hates his Grandma during the next election. Ugh.

Aye.

Dammit, aye!

With a bullet.

 

[jsfisher]

A line item veto gives the executive too much power.

The better way to get the same result is a "one object rule" where a bill can only address one issue and that issue must be clearly stated in the title.

No more riders where a crap provision setting aside ten billion dollars to study astrology is stapled to the "We Don't Hate Grandma" act so if a congressman votes against it based on the astrology part he can look forward to hearing how he hates his Grandma during the next election. Ugh.

Sadly, good ideas such as this will never make it as amendments for exactly the same reason term limits won't either.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Rescind the 14th Amendment.

This amendment both classifies all State citizens as a United State citizen and encumbers those delineated as such with the burden of paying United States debt.



:13:

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Rescind the 14th Amendment.

This amendment both classifies all State citizens as a United State citizen and encumbers those delineated as such with the burden of paying United States debt.



:13:

I don't quite understand your objections. Elaborate please.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I don't quite understand your objections. Elaborate please.

That amendment made a NEW class of citizen.

That NEW class of citizen was given the NEW obligation of paying United States debt.

 

[Suddenly]

I don't quite understand your objections. Elaborate please.

Allow me to assist....





Mainly this is CT nonsense that comes in many flavors. I've posted about it on a number of occasions.

Here is a post over at SC where I discuss it. I break it down part by part in my first post, below is from a later summary post:

He is saying that the 14th amendment creates "corporate citizenship," and such a citizen has no rights, is subject to all sorts of awful federal law.

It is a version of what I call a "garden of eden" theory. Those prone to this sort of thing are generally aggreived over what they see as a huge gap between what rights they think they have and the rights the legal system actually protects. While most people chalk this up to disagreement, or at least that those in charge are asshats, these aggrieved can't seem to let it go.

So they simply accept their idea of their rights as gospel truth, and that there must have been something that removed these rights. Ergo, we get this mumbo jumbo. The one key to this that is unclear in the introduction but will be explained later on is the exact interplay between the sovereign citizen and the corporate CITIZEN.

That is where the apple comes in. Take a bite and you go from the status as a sovereign citizen to a slave of the whim of the US GOVERNMENT. Ways to eat this apple are varied. Acknowledging ones name in all caps is one way. Getting a social security number, using federal reserve notes, and paying taxes are others. These theories are not very standardized, proponents differ as to details. The above is merely the introduction, likely we will be blessed with greater details in the body of the text.

Avoid the apple and avoid corporate citizenship. You remain a sovereign citizen that is subject only to "common law" jurisdiction. This is where those weird theories about gold fringe on a courtroom flag come into play, as a common claim is that the gold fringe signifies the court is a court of "admiralty jurisdiction" rather than "common law" jurisdiction. As such, the "sovereign citizen" will claim the right to not recognize the court.

Here is a primary source of this nonsense. Yes, these people are serious as a heart attack. They have an impressive collection of jibberish.

In chapter 12 of Michael Badnarik's book, Good to Be King he gets into this same 14th amendment nonsense and other constitutional CT chestnuts... which is important because Ron Paul wrote a glowing foreword to that book in which he suggests it is a good primer on constitutional law suitable for schoolchildren.... which is the main reason I think... or know... Paul is a kook.

If anyone wants to debate the details of this or wants to discuss the primary source above and other forms of this I suggest you start a thread and PM me rather than totally hijack this one.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Allow me to assist....

Mainly this is CT nonsense that comes in many flavors. I've posted about it on a number of occasions.

Blatant attempt to:

That is as dishonest an argument as they come.


:13:

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Suddenly, you did not even attempt to refute anything I wrote, you only presented the weakest of logical fallacies.

:13:

 

[Suddenly]

Did I hit a nerve?

Pointing out crap is crap is not poisoning the well. It is a conspiracy theory, and a goofy one at that. It is woo, pure and simple.

I challenge you to start a new thread in which you clearly state and provide evidence for your 14th amendment claims. I'm not going to waste my time with your general statements, but I will respond to a detailed post with evidence.

My advice is to backtrack and keep acting like a troll rather than provide a clear statement of your 14th amendment clainms and provide evidence. Being a troll is at least safe, and leaves you with the illusion of being clever and comfortable in your beliefs.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

This is a thread about constitutional amendments.

I stated that the 14th should be rescinded.

This is the correct thread for this talk.


Now, if you are done with the elementary logical fallacies we can begin.

 

[senorpogo]

That's some good advice Suddenly. This forum needs Jerome to start more threads.

 

[Suddenly]

That's some good advice Suddenly. This forum needs Jerome to start more threads.

I don't think there is any danger he will take my challenge. He's going to play stupid and never be more specific about his claim. This way the only way to debunk it is to read into it and assume specifics, so then he can cry strawman.

I'll humor him briefly.

This amendment both classifies all State citizens as a United State citizen and encumbers those delineated as such with the burden of paying United States debt.

Break it down thus:

This amendment both classifies all State citizens as a United State citizen

Not correct. The relevant passage is:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I will point out the obvious contexts here given the civil war. Now all residents born here are citizens with the above rights. No state can deny state citizenship based on race.

and encumbers those delineated as such with the burden of paying United States debt.

The relevant passage here is this one:

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void."

This doesn't create any obligations, it just lets those that are owed money from the confederacy know not to hold their breath. Same with those that lost slaves, while making it clear the US govt will pay all of its debts, including those from the war.

No new debts, no new statement of relations. The government owed money before this and nothing here changes that. Repeal would have many effects, but the national debt would still be the same fun debt we know today.

 

[Texas]

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I will point out the obvious contexts here given the civil war. Now all residents born here are citizens with the above rights. No state can deny state citizenship based on race.



.".

While the 14th was passed to reinforce the 13th, it did have the effect of greatly diminishing the 10th amendment. It, in effect, granted far greater power to the federal government especially the judiciary in setting aside state law. Brown v Board of Education and Roe v Wade the most prominent examples that I can think of at the moment.

 

[Suddenly]

While the 14th was passed to reinforce the 13th, it did have the effect of greatly diminishing the 10th amendment. It, in effect, granted far greater power to the federal government especially the judiciary in setting aside state law. Brown v Board of Education and Roe v Wade the most prominent examples that I can think of at the moment.

Sure. That was the point. Unfortunately court rulings more or less neutered this amendment and it took almost a century for things to sort out. The general idea was to eliminate race based laws, and yet Jim Crow lived on as a monument to the costs of outcome based jurisprudence.

Beyond civil liberty cases, it very important to criminal law. A state's protecton of the rights of the accused must equal or exceed the protection given under the federal constitution.

Getting rid of the 14th would have a lot of effects, but somehow affecting the issue of national debt isn't one of them as I'm pretty sure we don't today have civil war debt. I guess it could open the door for someone to possibly sue over some obscure debt owed by the confederacy to some ancestor or whatever under some argument that a constitutional bar to a civil suit tolls the statute of limitations or whatever.

 

[billydkid]

I chose "other" simply because I think there should be a Constitional amendment banning comb-overs. The ones that bother me particularly are the type where the part is at ear level running right around the back of the head and all of that longer hair is pulled up over the top and clipped at the front to form sort of a "bang". Here is another type that I find not extremely attractive.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y225/poisonousdarts79/0405_combover.jpg

and here's a beauty - tell me this should be legal!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Nl0djyeZSs&feature=related